At 01:50 PM 11/25/98 -0800, Adam Crowl wrote:>Glenn's leaving will impoverish this list and it's important to >understand why he's going. We've raised a lot of questions, but I think >more importantly our insistence on a non-literalistic, non-verifiable >reading of Genesis has really challenged his presuppositions about truth >and the form it takes. Working in geo-sciences he has to deal with >reality as it is, NOT as the observer wants it to be. To Glenn, I think, >the Bible can only be true by being fully true about that which it >speaks. The Bible has to an authoritative voice, rather than a normative >voice. It must speak Truth rather than be a repository of a believing >community's truths.>> Our Bible has a lot of competitors in this day and age, and >interpretations are proliferating faster than can followed. The >"historical Jesus" craze is seeping into popular culture with wacky >theories springing up like weeds. A surprising number of people have an >awareness of such alternative histories of the Church and Christ, which >explains why so many have claimed Jesus to be quite distinct to the work >of the Apostles i.e. the Bible and the Church.>>Glenn said [my paraphrase] "if the Apostles were speaking merely >opinions of their historic milieux then why should we believe their >witness" - why indeed? But this is a rather different question to "what >is the nature of Genesis?" - however both have the same epistemological >problem: how can we know? Biblical scholars are concocting ever more >elaborate interpretations of the formative period of the NT church, and >ever more convoluted accounts of "what really happened" - with such >high-profile scholarly doubt around no wonder Glenn's worried.>>So what can we do? How can we respond? Glenn has cast doubt on all that >he has held true. He's in another epistemological spin dive into >disbelief - are we going to merely stand-by? Can we at least give an >account of our own solutions to the crumbling ground of truth that we've >all encountered? Are we merely happy with a kind of agnosticism on the >issues that concerned Glenn, or do some of us have real faith in their >interpretations?>>I verge on agnosticism myself, but remain a believer only because of >spiritual encounters that "verified" the reality of the Gospel for me. >Else, with Sartre, I would declare God irrelevant and seek my own being. >Anyone else in doubt like Glenn and I?>>Adam>>______________________________________________________>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Dear Adam,

I enjoyed your post and as a physicists I must say the Jesus the Christ is
more real to me than an electron. The problem I see is that scientists are
fooled by the success of their science and knowingly or unknowingly make a
claim that the methods of science must work in all our areas of human
thought. I think some sober reading of Pascal's Thoughts may be in order to
know that sometimes the heart is more logical than reason. We are too
concerned with explaining everything and that is the fool's way. There is a
mystery which we will never know on this side of death. There is no reason,
and it makes no sense, to torture ourselves with using our God given brain
to search for that that is not available to us. As I said sometimes ago, it
is the nature of faith to doubt. There is nothing wrong with that. I ask
you, what is the alternative to Christ? I think there is none.